The logical deduction is that the draft had been pretty well scrubbed, that the IPCC knew this would happen and basically does not care what the clowns do. The bottom line which AR finds pretty fast:

It is extremely likely* that human activities have caused more than half
of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since
the 1950s. There is high confidence that this has caused
large-scale changes in the ocean, in the cryosphere, and in sea level in
the second half of the 20th century. Some extreme events have changed
as a result of anthropogenic influence. [*In panel terminology, "extremely likely" denotes a 95-percent likelihood.]

25 comments:

Anonymous
said...

You see, iCCCP wants to enforce the sun to emit energy in lower levels, so those who live in the sunny areas will have less tan. The side effect of this is that the role of the sun in the unchanging climate will be diminished. It's an intergovernemental conspiracy against sunbathers. Why are the sunbathers so discontent with this, I can't understand, for if succesful, the conspiracy would allow them to bathe for longer and with less tanning lotion. Anyway, the CC effect doesn't exist.

Hmm. On the one hand, I like the ACPD model of posting drafts, reviews, and review responses to papers publicly. And so the idea of a more open IPCC drafting process is tempting.

On the other hand, I understand the value of an private drafting process - there's a reason that internal drafts in government are NOT open to FOIA, for example. And with the IPCC, there's the extra issue that people will start quoting drafts before they are finalized, which could lead to confusion (e.g., a town making a sea level adaptation plan quotes the draft AR5 projections... which then are doubled, or halved, before the next report).

On the third hand, the IPCC drafts are very useful reference volumes for those of us in the field - even though they can't be drafted, we can quickly find out what the key papers are in a given field.

On the fourth hand, it is so easy to sign up to be an expert reviewer that many of the benefits of an open process are already available.

So, in conclusion, the one change I would like would be a spreadsheet where we could see responses by the authors to each of the comments on their chapter.

-MMM

(as an aside, the self-justification that Alex Rawls used for leaking the draft despite the confidentiality agreement is absolutely ridiculous. As is his reading comprehension and understanding of solar implications. But that's probably obvious to most readers of this blog)

With the IPCC sucking all the cosmic rays out of battlestar galactica, and using chemtrails to demagnetize the iron sun, how can we hope for Earth to last until the Maya End of Shopping Days next friday ?

If people haven't plowed through comments, that might try, as per V. Gray.Since the IPCC authors required to look at every comment, they should be able to tag each comment, such as:2: really useful, thanks!1: useful0: OK, nothing special-1: pretty dumb-10: total waste of time.

Or something like that, and when the dust settles, put out a report that enumerates the contributions of ever reviewer. Of course, it would be nice if there were a cutoff, of the from "you've filed 10 -10s, so we can throw everything else from you away and not waste our time."

As it is, the process allows the useless to waste a lot of time and still call themselves "reviewers."But to know that, you have to grind through a lot comments. A prize could be given for most time-wasting commenter.

Actually, Mr. Bowers, that's not fine. I'd be interested in viewing Mr. Clarke's serious website, the one tackling the complex and difficult and serious issues - the problems and solutions. Hint: the 'veracity' of human induced climate change is no longer one of issue.

That is their goal. They're like little bunnies, you wipe their butts, give them a bath and tuck them into bed, and then get to work. Explaining to them the realities of the world they live in should be reserved for when they are old enough to understand the issues. I don't try to explain the workings of condensed matter physics to bunnies, I just repair their cell phones and computers and move on to the next big thing.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.